Cathy Burner: November 15 ...ORTA Quarterly.. STRS premiums in 2018
Molly Writes:
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:18 PM
Subject: ORTA Quarterly
> ORTA BOARD:
>
> Please consider inviting Dennis Leone to write for the ORTA Qrterly.
> I understand that Jeff Chapman has agreed to write for this and he seems a
> thoughtful and conscientious board member whom I respect. I request that
> Leone co-write or split the column with Jeff as many RTA's worked so hard
> for Leone and are wondering why they are not hearing from their candidate.
> I think you will find Jeff agreeable and supportive. The space for the
> article need not be longer. Jeff and Leone can discuss the semantics.
> A new way for a new researching of how to make ORTA better: one of your
> goals.
>
> I understand that it was stated that Leone has decided against this but
> that did not present the entire picture to membership.
>
> Leone simply requested a statement from ORTA:
> - apologizing to Sondra Stratton for actions left unexplained to her
> personally. This was regarding a rally she was organizing. ORTA came out
> publicly stating they would not have any part which discouraged many
> involved. Leone felt Sondra was not treated respectfully or fairly for
> an effort on behalf of retirees. Personal contact was never made though
> they knew who was organizing this rally.
> -recognizing Tom Curtis, one of ORTA's members for signing HB133 which
> should have been a proud moment for ORTA.
> -supporting Leone's verifiable and factual research. The Exec. Direc., I
> believe it was, mimiced Gary Allen's statement questioning Leone's
> motives.
>
> These were not building moments in ORTA's history.
>
> 1. Dave Travis is gone and he is probably responsible for the Stratton
> incident. I know he told me personally that all assoc. were forced by
> STRS into the position of denouncing support for the rally being
> organized as the Assoc. felt much progress was being made that week (and
> it was: $2500 out of pocket max was honed down over those few days to
> $1500 which was ORTA and Endry's figure of choice for retirees) and STRS
> told them they would not sit down with organizations who promoted the
> rally.
> Travis said he could not know if that was the right thing to do and if a
> rally would or would not help, but he felt forced to take the position.
> There was dispute over whether he had that authority from the ORTA board
> when he made the statement and I believe it was found he acted
> prematurely. However, it was not handled properly and dismissed much work
> by Stratton.
> A personal call or meeting may have resolved the issue and ORTA could have
> planned with her on another date.
>
> Point: Travis and some board members are now gone so it may be a mute
> point to ever get them to make a statement.
>
> 2. Tom Curtis was the retiree asked to pen the signing of HB133.
> Tom IS an ORTA member.
> WHY did ORTA chose NOT to recognize their own and include this in the ORTA
> Qrterly?
>
> 3. Dennis Leone looked to ORTA and OEA for support when he read his
> report in 5/03.
> OEA attacked his integrity personally and Travis said his motives were
> unclear to me instead of aligning themselves by first reviewing the report
> for authenticity. All facts were provided by Damon Asbury on Dyer's
> request. Investigative reporters researched and found all facts
> verifiable and printed numerous articles as a result.
>
> Leone stated publicly that he intended to walk away as he felt certain
> OEA and ORTA would pick up where he left off for retirees. ONLY WHEN that
> did not happen, did he realize it was up to him to fight for retirees and
> against these spending abuses. The only mention of Leone was a sentence
> in Stearns speech one or twice thanking him. Did they EVER support him?
>
> He did not nor does seek media attention. BUT, it is hard to take when
> someone attacks your integrity for doing the right thing and NEVER
> retracks negative statements in spite of now knowing his research to be
> true.
>
> Therefore, what will it take for this issue to be resolved?
> Does the ORTA Exec. Direc. and board wish to continue being seen as
> incapable of sitting down and having an honest exchange or putting out a
> letter simply saying that:
> -We all wish we could retract some of our past actions. We realize
> Stratton was working on behalf of retirees and meant only well. A
> personal response to her was in order.
> -Tom Curtis, an ORTA member , was invited to sign HB133 on behalf of
> retirees.
> -We support Leone's research and request him to join Jeff Chapman in
> co-authoring or sharing a column with him in the ORTA Qrtely.
>
> ORTA Membership have made it clear they want to hear from LEONE and it
> seems they should be given this simple request.
>
> I am one of them.
> Take a poll if necessary but it is the right thing for ORTA CENTRAL (THE
> EXEC DIREC AND THE BOARD) IN COLUMBUS OHIO to do.
>
> Please, let's resolve this and show that our board hears its membership
> and is happy to fulfill this simplest request vs. hanging onto some
> decisions that were made in haste and need to be forever erased from the
> playing field.
>
> I would greatly appreciate a response.
> It is so much easier than to have to go on a crusade to gather names and
> petition this request.
> I think you know how that would turn out and surely, the time has come to
> end this.
> WE ALL have areas to improve and the only failing is an inability to
> recognize it or be able to work to resolve it. Respect is earned and
> this would go a long way of restoring image issues with DOWNTOWN ORTA
> FIGURES.
>
> Sincerely,
> Molly Janczyk
> ORTA LIFETIME
>
Subject: ORTA Quarterly
> ORTA BOARD:
>
> Please consider inviting Dennis Leone to write for the ORTA Qrterly.
> I understand that Jeff Chapman has agreed to write for this and he seems a
> thoughtful and conscientious board member whom I respect. I request that
> Leone co-write or split the column with Jeff as many RTA's worked so hard
> for Leone and are wondering why they are not hearing from their candidate.
> I think you will find Jeff agreeable and supportive. The space for the
> article need not be longer. Jeff and Leone can discuss the semantics.
> A new way for a new researching of how to make ORTA better: one of your
> goals.
>
> I understand that it was stated that Leone has decided against this but
> that did not present the entire picture to membership.
>
> Leone simply requested a statement from ORTA:
> - apologizing to Sondra Stratton for actions left unexplained to her
> personally. This was regarding a rally she was organizing. ORTA came out
> publicly stating they would not have any part which discouraged many
> involved. Leone felt Sondra was not treated respectfully or fairly for
> an effort on behalf of retirees. Personal contact was never made though
> they knew who was organizing this rally.
> -recognizing Tom Curtis, one of ORTA's members for signing HB133 which
> should have been a proud moment for ORTA.
> -supporting Leone's verifiable and factual research. The Exec. Direc., I
> believe it was, mimiced Gary Allen's statement questioning Leone's
> motives.
>
> These were not building moments in ORTA's history.
>
> 1. Dave Travis is gone and he is probably responsible for the Stratton
> incident. I know he told me personally that all assoc. were forced by
> STRS into the position of denouncing support for the rally being
> organized as the Assoc. felt much progress was being made that week (and
> it was: $2500 out of pocket max was honed down over those few days to
> $1500 which was ORTA and Endry's figure of choice for retirees) and STRS
> told them they would not sit down with organizations who promoted the
> rally.
> Travis said he could not know if that was the right thing to do and if a
> rally would or would not help, but he felt forced to take the position.
> There was dispute over whether he had that authority from the ORTA board
> when he made the statement and I believe it was found he acted
> prematurely. However, it was not handled properly and dismissed much work
> by Stratton.
> A personal call or meeting may have resolved the issue and ORTA could have
> planned with her on another date.
>
> Point: Travis and some board members are now gone so it may be a mute
> point to ever get them to make a statement.
>
> 2. Tom Curtis was the retiree asked to pen the signing of HB133.
> Tom IS an ORTA member.
> WHY did ORTA chose NOT to recognize their own and include this in the ORTA
> Qrterly?
>
> 3. Dennis Leone looked to ORTA and OEA for support when he read his
> report in 5/03.
> OEA attacked his integrity personally and Travis said his motives were
> unclear to me instead of aligning themselves by first reviewing the report
> for authenticity. All facts were provided by Damon Asbury on Dyer's
> request. Investigative reporters researched and found all facts
> verifiable and printed numerous articles as a result.
>
> Leone stated publicly that he intended to walk away as he felt certain
> OEA and ORTA would pick up where he left off for retirees. ONLY WHEN that
> did not happen, did he realize it was up to him to fight for retirees and
> against these spending abuses. The only mention of Leone was a sentence
> in Stearns speech one or twice thanking him. Did they EVER support him?
>
> He did not nor does seek media attention. BUT, it is hard to take when
> someone attacks your integrity for doing the right thing and NEVER
> retracks negative statements in spite of now knowing his research to be
> true.
>
> Therefore, what will it take for this issue to be resolved?
> Does the ORTA Exec. Direc. and board wish to continue being seen as
> incapable of sitting down and having an honest exchange or putting out a
> letter simply saying that:
> -We all wish we could retract some of our past actions. We realize
> Stratton was working on behalf of retirees and meant only well. A
> personal response to her was in order.
> -Tom Curtis, an ORTA member , was invited to sign HB133 on behalf of
> retirees.
> -We support Leone's research and request him to join Jeff Chapman in
> co-authoring or sharing a column with him in the ORTA Qrtely.
>
> ORTA Membership have made it clear they want to hear from LEONE and it
> seems they should be given this simple request.
>
> I am one of them.
> Take a poll if necessary but it is the right thing for ORTA CENTRAL (THE
> EXEC DIREC AND THE BOARD) IN COLUMBUS OHIO to do.
>
> Please, let's resolve this and show that our board hears its membership
> and is happy to fulfill this simplest request vs. hanging onto some
> decisions that were made in haste and need to be forever erased from the
> playing field.
>
> I would greatly appreciate a response.
> It is so much easier than to have to go on a crusade to gather names and
> petition this request.
> I think you know how that would turn out and surely, the time has come to
> end this.
> WE ALL have areas to improve and the only failing is an inability to
> recognize it or be able to work to resolve it. Respect is earned and
> this would go a long way of restoring image issues with DOWNTOWN ORTA
> FIGURES.
>
> Sincerely,
> Molly Janczyk
> ORTA LIFETIME
>
*************************************************
From: "Ecklar, Laura"
>>To: "molly janczyk"
>>CC: "Asbury, Damon"
>>Subject: RE: DAMON:report on second Cincinnati meeting
>>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:11:33 -0500
>>
>>Unfortunately, the meeting comments shared in the e-mail do not reflect
>>the entire conversation. The question Ms. Scott posed was, if a dedicated
>>revenue stream was not found for the health care program, would just the
>>premium subsidy end or would the entire health care program end? Our
>>response was that, without premium subsides, the premiums would eventually
>>exceed many plans available in the marketplace and the vast majority of
>>our members would move to those. Consequently, the program will
>>eventually end. The proposal we are sharing with active members is
>>designed to keep a premium subsidy for STRS Ohio benefit recipients. I
>>hope this answers your question. Thank you.
>>
************************** Read On *******************
>>To: "molly janczyk"
>>CC: "Asbury, Damon"
>>Subject: RE: DAMON:report on second Cincinnati meeting
>>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:11:33 -0500
>>
>>Unfortunately, the meeting comments shared in the e-mail do not reflect
>>the entire conversation. The question Ms. Scott posed was, if a dedicated
>>revenue stream was not found for the health care program, would just the
>>premium subsidy end or would the entire health care program end? Our
>>response was that, without premium subsides, the premiums would eventually
>>exceed many plans available in the marketplace and the vast majority of
>>our members would move to those. Consequently, the program will
>>eventually end. The proposal we are sharing with active members is
>>designed to keep a premium subsidy for STRS Ohio benefit recipients. I
>>hope this answers your question. Thank you.
>>
************************** Read On *******************
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification about the Nov. 7 STRS/HCA Meeting in Cincinnati
> Thank you, Marvin. This helps. I didn't understand this item in Scott's
> ques.
> We always want to be factual in our info and I needed clarification.
> Appreciate it.
>
>
>>From: Marvincb@aol.com
>>To: mollyjanczyk@hotmail.com
>>Subject: Re: Clarification about the Nov. 7 STRS/HCA Meeting in Cincinnati
>>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:12:17 EST
>>
>>Debbie Scott's question was about what would happen in 2018 if we do not
>>get
>>an increase in funding. Slide 26 had made it clear the plan is solvent
>>until
>>2018. Slide 29 stated that "Without changes, the health care fund is
>>eventually depleted." The presentation had already made clear that cost
>>cutting
>>measures will not be enough to save the STRS Health Care Plan.
>>
>>In answer to Debbie Scott's question about whether just the subsidy would
>>be
>>discontinued or whether the plan itself would be, Laura Ecklar and her
>>cohort, Larry Lewellen of OSU, said that as the premiums increased, the
>>healthy
>>retirees could and no doubt would go out in the open market and get a
>>better
>>premium. Because of the open enrollment features of the STRS healthcare
>>plan,
>>in 2018 only those who were in poor health would ever opt in as their
>>premiums rose on other plans they had acquired outside STRS. Those two
>>trends
>>would leave only those with severe health care problems in the plan. This
>>adverse
>>selection would then make the plan no longer viable-the costs would go
>>through the roof. It wouldn't just be that the subsidy would go away at
>>that time.
>> (My understanding is that the whole idea of a pooled risk of healthy
>> and
>>unhealthy would have been destroyed. As a result, no one would be able
>>to
>>afford the premiums that would have to be charged to maintain such a
>>plan.)
>>
>>That is a worst case scenario, and their answer assumes that no changes
>>would be made in the open enrollment feature. It wasn't intended to
>>scare
>>people, but it is a likely scenario if something is not done. The answer
>>certainly
>>enforced the idea of the seriousness of the situation for the active
>>teachers
>>and the retirees.
>>
>>Marvin
>
>
Subject: Re: Clarification about the Nov. 7 STRS/HCA Meeting in Cincinnati
> Thank you, Marvin. This helps. I didn't understand this item in Scott's
> ques.
> We always want to be factual in our info and I needed clarification.
> Appreciate it.
>
>
>>From: Marvincb@aol.com
>>To: mollyjanczyk@hotmail.com
>>Subject: Re: Clarification about the Nov. 7 STRS/HCA Meeting in Cincinnati
>>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:12:17 EST
>>
>>Debbie Scott's question was about what would happen in 2018 if we do not
>>get
>>an increase in funding. Slide 26 had made it clear the plan is solvent
>>until
>>2018. Slide 29 stated that "Without changes, the health care fund is
>>eventually depleted." The presentation had already made clear that cost
>>cutting
>>measures will not be enough to save the STRS Health Care Plan.
>>
>>In answer to Debbie Scott's question about whether just the subsidy would
>>be
>>discontinued or whether the plan itself would be, Laura Ecklar and her
>>cohort, Larry Lewellen of OSU, said that as the premiums increased, the
>>healthy
>>retirees could and no doubt would go out in the open market and get a
>>better
>>premium. Because of the open enrollment features of the STRS healthcare
>>plan,
>>in 2018 only those who were in poor health would ever opt in as their
>>premiums rose on other plans they had acquired outside STRS. Those two
>>trends
>>would leave only those with severe health care problems in the plan. This
>>adverse
>>selection would then make the plan no longer viable-the costs would go
>>through the roof. It wouldn't just be that the subsidy would go away at
>>that time.
>> (My understanding is that the whole idea of a pooled risk of healthy
>> and
>>unhealthy would have been destroyed. As a result, no one would be able
>>to
>>afford the premiums that would have to be charged to maintain such a
>>plan.)
>>
>>That is a worst case scenario, and their answer assumes that no changes
>>would be made in the open enrollment feature. It wasn't intended to
>>scare
>>people, but it is a likely scenario if something is not done. The answer
>>certainly
>>enforced the idea of the seriousness of the situation for the active
>>teachers
>>and the retirees.
>>
>>Marvin
>
>
posted by Kathie Bracy @ 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home